Agency Blasted Over Report on Risks of Lead

A scientific oversight panel Thursday leveled harsh criticism at the main state agency responsible for assessing health risks of pollutants, specifically suggesting that the agency may have softened a report on the risks associated with lead.

In an often contentious hearing, the scientists raised the possibility that the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment also delayed release of the new report on the health effects of lead.

The criticism was made by the Scientific Review Panel, a group of scientists primarily from the University of California that was established by state law to oversee the hazard assessment office.

“I’ve been on this panel for 10 years, and this is the most long, drawn out, politicized report we’ve ever dealt with,” said panel member Stanton Glantz, a UC San Francisco Medical School professor.

Glantz took the leading role in making several changes to the five-volume lead report, the overall effect of which was to sharpen its tone.

The hazard assessment office came under attack last month when environmental groups sued over the agency’s policy that office scientists destroy documents that might suggest they had dissented from the final analysis of various toxins.

Richard Becker, named the agency’s director by Gov. Pete Wilson in September, told panel members that he could not discuss that policy because of the lawsuit, but he did say the directive had been rescinded.

Becker also told the Scientific Review Panel that he believes in the need to produce high-quality scientific reports. He attributed the complaints to a lack of communication, saying “phone calls can be made” to ease hard feelings.

“Obviously, there are some bumps in the road,” Becker said outside the meeting room.

The lead report has been five years in the making. Panel members first reviewed it in January 1994 and called for what members said were relatively minor changes, which were made.

“There was no technical reason for the report to have taken three years,” said panel member John Froines, professor of toxicology at UCLA. “The report was, for all intents, done three years ago.”

However, one of the report’s authors, Bill Vance, said the agency added information to the document and responded to criticism from, among others, representatives of lead producers.

“I think it’s an excellent report. We wouldn’t have put it up today if we didn’t think it was [excellent],” Vance said.

After endorsing the changes offered by Glantz, the panel approved the lead report and forwarded it to the state Air Resources Board, which now can begin steps to further regulate lead emissions.

Lead already is regulated by state and federal law, and no longer is used in gasoline or paint. As a result of those and other changes, lead levels have been cut significantly.

Despite those reductions, however, the report by the hazard assessment office says that as much as 182 tons of lead continues to be emitted into the state’s air each year--far more than the nine tons estimated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

The major reason for the difference is that California scientists include emissions from aircraft exhaust, a major source of lead.

Lead, a substance known to be poisonous to humans for 1,000 years, can cause decreased intelligence and neurological damage in children, the most susceptible group. High levels of lead can also result in increased blood pressure as well as cancer.